Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC

Background

Applied Materials, Inc. and Demaray LLC filed administrative motions asking to seal documents submitted with Applied’s motion for summary judgment, Demaray’s opposition and sur-reply, Applied’s reply, and Applied’s responsive claim-construction brief. The materials included briefs, claim charts, deposition excerpts, declarations, discovery materials, infringement contentions, and hearing transcripts.

Legal standard

The court held that materials related to a dispositive motion such as summary judgment may be sealed only when “compelling reasons” support sealing. Such reasons can include protecting trade secrets and business information whose disclosure could harm a party’s competitive position. Embarrassment or concern that information might be misunderstood is not enough. The court also applied the compelling-reasons standard to the claim-construction materials because claim construction is often important to the outcome of a patent case.

Rulings on the summary-judgment materials

The court generally found compelling reasons to seal confidential product information and sensitive information about customer relationships. It granted many requests to seal Applied’s, Demaray’s, Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.’s, Samsung’s, Intel’s, and Comet Technologies USA Inc.’s confidential information where the requests were supported and sufficiently focused.

The court denied sealing for several categories of material. These included attorney arguments that did not reveal proprietary technical information, general descriptions of discovery, stale information, general scientific principles concerning physical-vapor-deposition chambers, and statements made in open court. The court also denied requests when the person or company that had originally designated information as confidential no longer sought sealing, or when the request covered an entire document rather than specific proprietary material.

For some requests concerning Applied’s materials, the court stated that Applied could renew its request by identifying specific proprietary information and proposing narrower redactions. The court similarly allowed Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. to renew certain requests.

Rulings on the reply, sur-reply, and claim-construction materials

For Applied’s reply, the court granted sealing in part but denied sealing for attorney arguments about the claims and prior art, general descriptions of discovery, and other material not containing proprietary chamber details. The court denied sealing of excerpts from the public Markman claim-construction hearing because the hearing was open to the public and the parties had not timely requested redactions.

For Demaray’s sur-reply, the court granted sealing in part but denied it for legal arguments and denied requests to seal entire versions of two proposed amended-infringement-contentions exhibits because those requests were not narrowly tailored. Applied could renew those requests with specific proposed redactions.

The court granted Applied’s motion to seal two excerpts from claim charts attached to its responsive claim-construction brief because the excerpts contained narrowly identified proprietary technical details about Applied’s chambers.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that it “GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART” the parties’ motions to seal, without prejudice. A party or non-party seeking to renew a request had to file a single motion covering all documents for which renewal was sought by July 14, 2023. If no renewal motions were filed, public versions of documents for which sealing was denied were due by July 19, 2023. If renewal motions were filed, public versions were to wait until all related sealing requests were finally resolved.